Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Naturalist recommends a piece up at Ars about a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the EFF, CDT, Public Citizen, and a group of 14 law professors in the case of Lori Drew, who posed as a teenage boy to harass another teen online, eventually driving her to suicide. (We've discussed the case a few times.) "[The amicus brief argues] that violating MySpace's Terms of Service agreement shouldn't be considered criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The groups believe that if the mother, Lori Drew, is prosecuted using CFAA charges, the case could have significant ramifications for the free speech rights of US citizens using the Internet."

The facts in this particular case point to a truly twisted individual, but this individual is unable to be prosecuted for major jail time under current, non "novel" interpretations of law. The proper thing to do is to note this case, and realize the perpetrator is not guilty of a felony, and create a new law to handle this case, rather than trying to find some way to twist the law to put this person in jail "for something", which will open the floodgates of abuses.

What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?

I can't speak for OP, but the behaviour we might want to look at is not simply being a dick, but conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual. We might even want to extend it to a class of individuals to account for 'behaviours' such as planting epilepsy inducing graphics on epilepsy support boards and the like.

I agree with OP, that twisting an existing law for fear that this woman might get away with what she has done, when clearly she should not, is not an acceptable solution.

"I agree with OP, that twisting an existing law for fear that this woman might get away with what she has done, when clearly she should not, is not an acceptable solution."

Yep..I mean it has happened before...awhile back, I think it was in L.A., where a guy had hidden video recording equipment in peoples' homes, and was recording them having sex and whatnot...when caught, it caused a big uproar, but, in the end, there was no law against what he did. They pretty much had to let him go, but, passed laws con

What I don't get is how people then get worked up about all this stuff if it is a person that doesn't exist. Ok, sure if it was someone you knew that said "I hate your guts" it might be a problem, but some random guy on the internet, I could care less.

"What I don't get is how people then get worked up about all this stuff if it is a person that doesn't exist. Ok, sure if it was someone you knew that said "I hate your guts" it might be a problem, but some random guy on the internet, I could care less."

I think it shows the chick that offed herself, had issues way before this happened. If it hadn't been this incident that pushed her over the edge, it might have been a story about a beached whale, or listening to Ozzy's "Suicide Solution" backwards or some

Yeah... but how do you GET the restraining order when the person in question has fraudulently set up a fake identity? That's the whole point of anonymity, though, isn't it? It spares you from people holding you accountable for what you say or do.

Which I'm sure a teenager has a full grasp of the law and the forethought to make a call to her local lawyer and move the process along.

This is an adult who pushed a minor, with malice aforethought, into a high state of agitation and personal anguish. In my mind, that's straight up child abuse.

Whether it's prosecutable or not is for others to figure out, but at the very least, an enormous wrongful death suit can and should commence following this case, if it comes to pass that she is acquitted - which she might be.

The case does threaten a piece of free speech, but this is an adult who communicated attacks on a minor, with intent and malice to cause emotional harm to her (and succeeded). The bitch is going to account for that crime, one way or the other.

The parents of that child should keep an eye on where Drew goes after all this is over, if she is free. If she gets a job, rents an apartment, and buys Internet service, they should have newspaper clippings and a letter in hand to deliver to each and every manager and employer. Let them know who they're serving/employing.

Maybe it doesn't provide justice, and maybe it won't do anything. But perhaps someone in a position to make something happen will read it, and decide not to let this woman live so comfortably with the lives she's so callously and indifferently destroyed.

"It's not harassment; it's simply notifying employers that someone they may be hiring is a bad hire."

That's exactly what harassment is, that that's exactly the wrong response. Ruining lives is not justice, and should never be condoned in a civilized society. What you propose is no better than what she did, deliberately and systematically ruining a life.

I doubt anybody will remember her name. I've heard about the case many times before, and couldn't recall the name of the accused. If you ask me tomorrow, I will probably have forgotten the name again by them. Sure I could just Google every potential person I plan to hire. But a lot of employers don't do that.

While I think this is a sad story, and I feel for all involved, I simply cannot agree that a new law should be made to handle this case and charge the mother. Yes - she did a horrible thing. Yes - it is likely a cause that pushed the teen over the edge. No - it could not have in any stretch of imagination been the one sole contributing factor to the death. A straw on the camels back? Perhaps. But I think that anyone can clearly see the failure of logic in charging someone for a felony for placing a straw on the camels back, when there is in fact a bulging load there already.

Speaking from personal experience, you don't get that depressed from a single person posting on a website/sending emails. You don't go from being a happy-go-lucky normal individual to a suicidal person overnight, over a month or likely even over a year. I started being depressed often from the age of about ten or eleven. I had a suicide attempt when I was twenty three. I do not blame anyone directly. I was in a bad place, and in retrospect the problem lay totally with ME. Why can't people learn to look at their own issues before pointing fingers and pushing blame to everyone else so quickly?

Did you read about the Greyhound bus killer [theglobeandmail.com]? Seems that in certain cases people can go from zero to crazy in 4.6 seconds. Not all the details are out yet, but it seems like the accused in the greyhound case went from normal to cannibalistic killer in a matter of a few days. No word if there was even a trigger yet which caused him to snap.

What sounds like a campaign lasting a few months to build up, then knock down a teenage kid and then spreading malicious gossip about the kid sounds like enough to count for a lot of straws to me. the kid may not have been the happiest ever, but a medium term campaign like the one described is enough to get a stable person onto the prozac. You say you've been there or near enough and seen how to solve your own problems. I'm pleased for you and maybe this doesn't apply to you but problems caused by other people can easily be just as important as personal problems when it comes to someone taking their own life. I've been there too and I know that working on your own problems can only fix things if a person's environment is right - or at least not so bad that a person gets knocked down whenever they try to get up. The environment in this case included someone who was clearly malicious towards the kid, which is hardly a good one in which to fix any problems a person might have. If you're looking for a last straw, I'd go for the argument with her mum about using myspace

Don't you have any harassment or bullying laws over there that the woman could be tried under? A computer was used for these purposes, as well as impersonation - if a cape and mask were used, would there have to be a cape and mask law for the woman to be tried under?

Thanks for posting, most others seem to think it was a single act that brought the charges, and that isn't true. There is such a thing as felony harrassment, and currently there are a few MySpace felony harrassment cases being prosecuted. This case seems particularly heiness, so maybe prosectors believe that its just not a strong enough charge... they want blood. I don't know the details, but I think its likely this is one of the "lesser included charges." Lying, apparently, is protected by free speech, unl

Take someone with a weak heart, strap them in a roller coaster and they might die right there and then. Take someone emotionally unstable, strap them in an emotional roller coaster and them might die right there and then.

And if you did in fact give free amusement park tickets to someone with a weak heart, and they went on a roller coaster of their own free will, and they did in fact have a heart attack and die - would the person giving them the tickets be charged with a felony like in this case? Even if they knew the person had a weak heart? I doubt ANY charges would be laid and if they were a $20 lawyer would get them off scott free.

"How about if we add in knowing they had a weak heart, and browbeating them into going to the amusement park, then peer pressuring them onto the roller coaster, with the intent of trying to trigger a heart attack?"

Still, if the person with the weak heart got on the roller coaster of their own free will, without a gun their head...it is their fault.

No one in your scenario forced them go get on. Coerced, sure, but, the person still had the choice.

So that means that this woman shouldn't have to own up to her own actions?

I was driven to attempt suicide, in 8th grade, by... well, it all stemmed from *one* incident, and then it snowballed from there. Eventually, the whole damn school would just relentless pick on me. I tried everything to stop it - ignoring it, fighting back, going through authority, nothing works like that.Granted, some good things came of that, like the fact that I became involved in the OSS community as a way to escape (in fact, thanks to working on OSS in various ways, I'm able to be completely without my prozac ^-^).

Just because someone was 'emotionally weak' is no reason to excuse those who torment them. That's like saying that just because someone couldn't handle being shot at repeatedly that they 'deserved' to die.

No. People shouldn't 'have' to learn to 'deal with it'. This shit just plain shouldn't happen. And you know what? It's not a lack of backbone in the victim's case. It's that some crazy bitch with a fucked up vendetta against this girl, for whatever reason, exploited her weaknesses to the extent that the girl killed herself. While not murder, as she didn't pull the trigger, she is certainly culpable for doing more than her fair share for making this girl commit suicide.

Not necessarily; doing so requires an effort entirely disproportionate with the consequences of the fraud you committed. The State shouldn't prosecute you because there's no reason to- you didn't get anything out of it and neither will the State.

In this case, however, that's not true. This is where prosecutor's discretion does come into play.

Would it be as big a deal if someone did this through the mail? I don't see why new technology also needs new laws, so I would hope there would be no legal precedent set for computer specific harassment.

in my opinion. You do not have the right to torment an individual like this anymore than you have a right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or "I have a bomb" in an airport. AT some point, the safety of others does override your right to "free" speech.

First of all, if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the results are predictable. There will be a panic and some people will suffer physical injury. Any reasonable person can see that. Second, some of the people who get hurt may be innocent, trampled by others due to events entirely outside of their control.

In this case, one could not have necessarily predicted that Lori Drew's torments would result in the girl's suicide. Nor was the girl completely inno

Their argument is that by breaking MySpace's TOS she is gaining unauthorized access to the site (i.e., hacking it), and can be charged for that. If you don't see why this is a very bad thing, and can't be bothered to RTFA, I'll quote the relevant bits for you:

The EFF says that a MySpace user doesn't gain unauthorized access to MySpace's servers by disregarding the ToS, which is what the DoJ's reading of the CFAA would criminalize. Additionally, the groups argue that the legislative history of the CFAA supports the view that it's meant to prevent trespass and theft on computers or computer networks, not improper motives or use. The EFF and CDT believe that holding Drew criminally liable for violating MySpace's ToS would be an "extraordinary and dangerous extension of federal criminal law," as it would turn practically everyone into federal criminals.

They point out that even checking out the popular dating site Match.com for the mere purpose of research into this case would have turned the brief's author into a criminal, as she is married and the ToS prohibits those who are not single or separated from using the site. "[T]he Government's theory would attach criminal penalties to minors under the age of 18 who use the Google search engine, as well as to many individuals who legitimately exercise their First Amendment rights to speak anonymously online," adds the brief. Although the groups agree that Meier's death was a tragedy and that there is a heavy desire to hold Drew accountable for her actions, they believe the First Amendment rights of citizens outweigh the "overbroad" interpretation of the CFAA in order to prosecute her, and urge the court to dismiss the indictment.

Yeah, it's the god damned internet. That doesn't mean that people don't have emotions on the internet.

I'm actually against marking this as a criminal offense, also for free speech reasons, but seriously. The very idea that she wasn't tormenting that girl is total BS. You can torment someone in person, you can torment them on the phone, you can torment them over IM or on IRC or whatever. The internet does not grant magical anti-emotion powers.

What I think you're missing is the difference between "I can do something" and "I should do something".

This almost falls under my personal definition of torment as the woman did seek the girl out (if she hadnt and the girl had just found this fake boy online i would classify it as forthelulz and absolutely hilarious) with the intent to fuck with her, but that's the glory of the internet. You can fuck with anyone you want to (verbally, or would it be textually?) and pretend to be whoever you want, whatever you want, believe whatever you want, and just run with it.

Are you saying the reason it isn't torment is because the tormentor is anonymous? That doesn't seem logical definition of torment to me.

How about Lori Drew take some personal responsibility for being evil, and kill herself to improve the gene pool. People with their 'personal responsibility' rants always want it on one side and not on the other. Completely irresponsible.

Posting photoshopped pictures of Obama with a crackpipe between his lips is trolling.

Creating a persona as a Born-Again Christian and attempting to "save" people in atheist forums is trolling.

She pretended to be a boy who liked her, girl fell in love with her e-boyfriend, e-boyfriend then called her a slut and this that and the other thing, and the girl, who was mad fucked in the head and should have been receiving help went and offed herself.

That isn't trolling. That's a pure mindfuck and should be treated as such.

mad fucked in the head

I didn't realize the hoodrats knew about/.

It sucks someone died

No, it doesn't. Coming home from the grocery store and discovering half your eggs are cracked sucks. Having to bury your teenage daughter because of the actions of a sadistic sack of shit - that knew she had mental problems and exploited them - is a tragedy and a crime.

There are plenty of laws that prohibit harassment. Here is an experiment you can try right in your own town/city. Go down town. Find some old lady walking down the road, and follow behind her calling out "fucking hag", "stupid bitch", "go die", as loud and as often as you find it within your power of free speech. No do this for most of the day, randomly switching out people (try to find the most pathetic persion you can, elderly, children, invalids, etc..) You'll quickly learn that there are plenty of laws that prohibit this type of behavior.

Bad events make bad laws. Just read the story below this one. Though this may be more in the way of bad case law.
That said, I think this woman's behavior is so beyond the pale that she deserves to be featured in a Lifetime movie at the least. And her head stuck on a pike to remind the next 5 generations that some behaviors are so reprehensible that you shouldn't do them.

There should be nothing that compels this case to be brought up under ANY modern legislation pertaining computers. Computers and social networking were the means of the harassment... this does not mean there are any new concepts here.

Harassment and emotional abuse can be performed in person or over the Internet, and I've got to imagine that charges for wanton malicious actions against a minor will have much stiffer penalties than a simple ToS violation.

I don't mean to be too jaded here, but it doesn't much sense to me to be bringing an uncertain case against someone with a new law, unless the prosecuting attorney is seeking a landmark decision to put on a resume.

Certainly there must be a better choice than a new law when the actions of one lead another (esp. a minor) to suicide?

A private individual or company (they) does not have to let one exercise one's free speach right. They do not have to let someone else use my system or website to expound ideas They do not agree with. And, They have the right to condition access to same on not expounding those ideas.

That is part of freedom of speach and freedom of association.

They also have the right to condition access on being truthful. By lying to obtain access, one exceeds one's access. It is obtaining access by fraud. It just happens t

The girl's family should sue this woman in Civil Court for the wrongful death of their daughter. The burden of proof is much lower in civil court than in criminal, and they could ruin this woman for the rest of her life -- which is a hell of a lot more than she deserves, because she still gets to draw breath, but their daughter doesn't. And there daughter would still be alive today if not for this woman's depraved actions.

This woman may have been the catalyst, but the potential for suicide was already there. Should society as a whole walk around on eggshells to avoid whatever trigger will cause the already mentally unstable to go over the edge?

Let's say you honk your horn and some guy flips out and shoots himself. Now, in most places, honking your horn is illegal unless you are alerting someone to danger. So, should you then be charged to the full extent of the law?

First off, the potential for suicide is there in everyone with the ability to physically kill themselves.

Second, if you were to find out that your neighbor's kid has issues, and you set up an elaborate scheme with the intent to cause him or her serious emotional harm, and proceed to, you will of course be partially to blame for it. I am not sure how many people here get that Lori Drew was 40 something, picking on a teen with emotional problems. Regardless of the medium, she is partially responsible fo

This woman was not 'the catalyst.' This is not about the potential for suicidal behaviour. This is more like the potential for my arm to break, and someone coming along and purposefully breaking it, and then I get an infection from having an open wound and die. The act of breaking my arm did not directly cause my death, but my death would not have occurred had my arm not been broken.

There is also a difference between simply having 'a bad day' and snapping, or having one thing go wrong and snapping at the

Someone that emotionally fragile would've committed suicide sooner or later. Who kills themselves because their e-boyfriend (never seen in real life or video chat) suddenly calls them names? Me, I would be pissed, not suicidal. And this is only if I don't just assume that some troll had gotten control of the account.

The refutation of this argument is as follows:

You are going to die sooner or later. Does that then mean that I can kill you right now and that I should f

The thing about any censorship laws, especially on obscenity, is that it is up to individuals to decide what gets censored. Tub girl is obscene and "shouldn't" be shown on kids shows, but when you make laws saying you "can't" it gets into a tricky spot.

There are individuals who would say it is obscene to see white women kissing black men, and at one point in time they may have had a large enough majority to make it law if they had the legal means to invalidate the right of free speech. If you have any infringement on the right to free speech based on what is right or wrong, or inflammatory, you risk completly destroying that right and making it just a privilege.

This case has a girl that was harmed in a new way that no law exists to properly prosecute. It shows the need for new laws, not the destruction of old rights. We have protection to these rights because of these kinds of actions, If it is OK to throw out rights based on criminal offenses then it's possible to throw them out on others.

Teenage suicide is down lower than it has been for years. We have given teenagers the tools to reach out to other peers and express their feelings. Suicide is a real problem that has been arround long before social networks and will remain long after.In the case of an adult posing as a young teenager to manipulate and violate the poor teenage girl, tipping her over the edge of an already uneasy situation and pushing her to suicide is murder!

So whenever someone says anything mean to me, and it makes me depressed, I have the right to sue back? Or if I incidentally kill myself over it because I"m an overly-sensitive person or I can't take criticize well at all, they should have a case?

It's a very dangerous precedent to send people to jail or otherwise censor what people can say or do because it might cause someone to hurt themselves (due to their own emotions, or whatnot). If I told someone to simply shoot themself and they went and did it, sho

The point isn't that the lady said bad things that drove a kid to suicide, or that the lady used the internet to do it. The lady should be subject to ordinary liability for that--just like any person who did the same thing on the street, or in the mail, or whatever. That's not the issue.

The issue is the terms of service agreement! That thing you click on and ignore so many times. That thing you send phony information so that the corporation doesn't get too personal on you!

If you type in phony information, (FRAUD, daddy), and then hurt somebody's feelings while on the account procured by fraud, the Federales can prosecute you for a crime. Think about the slippery slope this affords . . .

Well, what about us who just don't like people knowing who they are? It's not like I have anything to hide - I can't say I would be embarrassed or uncomfortable with anything I've attached to this name. But just like I don't walk around with my driver's license pinned to my shirt, I don't want my identity freely given to anyone with eyes - I want to give it out myself and mind who has it. Joe Schmuck doesn't need to know my name.

Just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean it's wrong to hide.

You have the right to say anything, and be heard, however, what you say can get you into trouble.If you don't like the war, and you protest, and make speeches that the war is bad, and that you think the president is mistaken, that's protected under the freedom of speech.If you don't like the war, and you protest, and make threats against the president, then you will be held accountable and the threats will be taken seriously.

If you are a psychiatrist whose job it is to help people through emotional problems, and you tell your client - you're fucked up, chances are that not only will the patient not get better, but you will be sued, and if something happens to the patient, like suicide, then chances are you will be prosecuted in some form or other.

If you are a normal person, who, by using a false identity, abuses someone or their character in such a way that it erodes their self-esteem, sense of self-worth, sense of self, to such a degree that they commit suicide, then you are most definitely guilty of abuse, both mental and emotional abuse, and should be held accountable as contributing to the death of said person.

This would be the case regardless of the technology used. The only thing this technology granted was a sense of anonymity that was properly given up due to the bizarre circumstances of the case.

If you were to stand at your fence in your backyard and belittle the child-next-door, calling them names, worthless, pieces of garbage, day in and day out, chances are you'd be faced with at least a law-suit if not a visit by the police. Why would doing this over the internet be any different? Should someone who intentionally abuses another person be protected just because they used the internet to do it? Should they expect a right to privacy or anonymity just because they tried to hide their identity before making those actions? I don't think so, and would hope that you wouldn't as well.

I don't believe free speech protections cover harassment. Lori Drew created the account with the specific intent of causing emotional harm to Megan Meier. Now, she had no way of knowing that Megan Meier was going to commit suicide, but that is beside the point: there was still the intent to cause harm.

Free speech protects many things, but it does not provide a defense against harassment, and it does not provide a defense against a criminal act where there is shown to be malicious intent.

While they can argue that what was said between Lori Drew and Megan Meier may have been covered by free speech, the fact that Lori Drew created a false identity (an identity crafted to appeal to Megan) shows that she knew her actions were morally wrong, if not legally wrong.

Free speech may allow people to create online an alter ego or speak under a pseudonym, but I think that it can easily be proven that "Josh Evans" created by Lori Drew was neither an alter ego nor a pseudonym: 'he' was created to appeal as much as possible to Megan Meier.

Free speech also does not change the fact that Lori Drew acted in breach of MySpace's conditions of use, and therefore was in breach of contract.

While I respect the EFF and others for protecting free speech (even though I am not a US citizen), I do not believe that free speech laws should cover actions like this. Sure, this is not an isolated case and harassment like this is widespread in the Internet, but that does not mean that it is right.

It seems like most of the replies here aren't fully informed about the issues of the case and are looking at the "free speech" in the subject the wrong way, so here's a brief overview.

Originally the prosecution looked to charge her for harassment and/or threatening behavior. However, under the law at the time, her speech was considered protected speech, and the prosecution decided that they didn't have a case for harassment. (The law has since been amended so if she did that now, she could very easily charged).

The prosecution ultimately decided to indict her [wired.com] using an anti-hacking law that prevents "unauthorized access to a computer." The argument is that by misrepresenting herself on myspace, she violated the Terms of Service. Therefore, her access to Myspace's Servers was unauthorized, and she committed a felony by using myspace while violating their ToS. The indictment is not for harassment/threatening behavior. It's for breaking the ToS of a website, which the hacking law has never been used for before.

As the EFF amicus brief points out, if violating the ToS of a site is criminal behavior, this has far reaching implications. Google has something in their Terms of Service that says you have to be 18 to use google. According to the prosecution in this case, anyone under 18 who does a google search is a felon. Facebook's ToS has a provision that says you must keep all information in your profile up to date. If i change my favorite movie and don't update my facebook account promptly, i'm a felon.

This is not an issue of harassment vs. free speech. I think we all agree that Lori Drew is an ass and ideally, she should be punished. However, don't try and get her on an obscure law that will have far reaching implications. Violating the terms of service on a website (which a large majority of people don't even read fully) should not be a criminal offense. That's what this case is seeking to do

If Lori Drew had used a voice changer and a prepay cellphone I honestly believe all of America would be out to lynch her by now. What makes the internet so different?

Lori mounted a systematic and cruel attack to inflict emotional harm on a minor over a period of months. This goes far beyond name calling or a prank. It was deliberate and it was designed to harm. The tools used to harass have little to do with the case in my opinion.

Is Lori is responsible for the child's death? Perhaps, but how do you determine the weight of her contribution? I for one have no idea and personally believe no one can say that with any certainty.

What seems rather clear to me is an act of child abuse, harassment, and fraud.

I think it's 'cos so many here do or have done something like that in the Internet... So they're scared for the consequences of their own actions, desperately crying after their free speech to impersonate and to bully "losers" without fear of taking any responsibility. To them, "freedom" means "freedom of responsibility"...

Then a whole different class of murderer sympathisers are those who believe that weak deserve to die if they're as weak as the girl here. Some of these might eve

This law does not make violating the terms of service a felony. The fraud perpetrated to gain access is only one element of the crime. You only end up falling under this law, in this case, if you use said access to commit a further crime(in this case harassment).

You clearly don't have kids - most teenagers these days won't let their parents into their life. Not because the parents are bad, but because society (advertising?) encourages teenagers to be self-sufficient and live their own life.

Sometimes, all the parents can do is be supportive and listen when their kid doesn't want to talk. If the kid won't talk to his/her parents... what did you want the parents to do? Tie them up and force them to speak?

Anyways, my point is that Good Parents don't always have good kids. And parents (unfortunately) can't always get their kids to open up and talk to them.

I guess your mom would kick you out of her basement if you were rebellious, so I can't expect you to understand.

This is a nature-vs-nurture argument; you clearly fall on the side of nature. We could fill an entire/. thread with arguments on this one, so I'll just respectfully disagree with you on this one and leave it at that (my belief: 80% nurture).

most teenagers these days won't let their parents into their life.

From my experience as a teenager -- not THAT long ago -- and experience with my younger brother's circle, I don't find this to be the no

If the kid won't talk to his/her parents... what did you want the parents to do? Tie them up and force them to speak?

Yeah, that wouldn't be bad.

When I was a teenager I was like this. (Not the suicidal bit, just the part where I didn't want to talk to my parents.) I think it would have been really good for me if they had sat down and really forced me to discuss things. I kept a lot of stuff to myself, and it wasn't healthy. I made some errors in high school and in my first year of college that I regret, and I wish somebody with more sense would have been aware enough of what was going on to talk to me, tell me how dumb I was being in a supportive manner, and set me straight. But my parents respected my wish to be left alone and as such I ended up on my own when I didn't really want to be.

Now, I turned out alright, and I don't hold this against my parents. But yeah, if your teens don't want to talk, force 'em. Make a habit out of sitting down with them and prying information out. Find out what's going on in their lives. If they don't like it, tough. A teenager may think he's an adult, may try to act like an adult, may go out and do adult things, but ultimately he's still a child (at least an the lower end of the range, like this girl was). And you're still that child's parents. You're not their friend, not their roommate. You're not doing them a favor by leaving them alone or respecting their wishes not to talk.

Far too many teenagers end up in an adversarial situation with their parents. And I think the cause is, paradoxically, because parents try to be too friendly with their children. Far too often, when a daughter hits the teen years her mother says, woo, now we can go out and do fun girly stuff together! The same thing with sons and fathers, except not girly. Parenting needs to be based on respect and authority, not friendship. Children usually already have friends, they don't need two more. What they don't have are role models, authority figures, and people who can give sound advice from a perspective of older age.

The most screwed up young adults I know are those whose parents tried to be friends with them. Conversely, the most well adjusted young adults I know are those whose parents stayed in the role as a parent. They weren't mean or cruel or overbearing, but they raised their kids instead of befriending them.

Firstly, I utterly disagree with your simplified and clearly exceptionally incorrect assumptions. You are only making yourself look uninformed.

If your child -- YOUR CHILD -- was depressed enough to commit suicide, how could you not know?

Most people who are severely depressed actually hide their feelings from others, which includes not letting people know they are suicidal. Have a quick read of things like Black Dog Institute [blackdoginstitute.org.au] to catch up to the rest of the world.

Secondly, I do in fact totally agree that the original case is bogus - which I assume is what you mean by your comments here. BUT I do on

If someone harasses you IRL, who do you blame? The... air that carried their words to your ears?

No, you blame the person who's harassing you, which is exactly what's going on in this case. Like it says in your own quote, the case is against the woman whose harassment drove this girl to suicide, not the web site she used as a medium.

It's a hormone thing, and psychological development thing. Hormones at that age basically magnify emotions, and that causes overcompensation and confusion. Lack of psychological development is even simpler: When you're older, you've got the experience of this exact situation to know it's not worth killing yourself over.

Supercharged emotions plus mass confusion over new and disturbing experiences leads to mental breakdown. Must be nice; my brain is so damn hardened I've been through the most horrible emo

This is Slashdot. I bet 90% of us here would have come into contact with bullying or emotional harassment. Sure we've gotten our own back, but when you're a kid things are different. While I think the OP is being a little insensitive, I don't think you can draw a line from "Internet boyfriend acting like a dickhead" to "Ok I'm going to commit suicide".

Suicide is not a natural response to bullying, especially when that's not even face-to-face, which is what we experienced. If it was, most of us wouldn't be here. Either the girl had other problems which lead to her suicide (likely) or she was simply mentally unstable. In either of those cases the medium through which the straw that broke the camels back travelled is not relevant.

She didn't know it was an adult bullying her. And it wasn't even a "stupid jock type" in a school environment. It was someone acting like a douche bag via text. Words.

My point is that kids get bullied everyday. Face-to-face. They get abused emotionally, physically. That's not a good thing. It's a terrible thing. But it happens, and only a small proportion actually kill themselves. This girl apparently killed herself because someone she'd never met was writing bad words about her. Bullying is not good and it's not acceptable. I'm not that it is. But it's also foolish to pretend that this one particular case is all that's needed to make someone commit suicide.

That's why I think there were other problems with this girl - be they other forms of bullying at school or some kind of mental illness. If the real problem is bullying or mental illness then THOSE are the issues that should be argued about and debated in the media and in Parliament/Congress. Not things like MySpace's Terms and Conditions.

I think the point is that an adult with a fully developed brain deliberately set out to screw with a kid. Kids may do the same, but they're unlikely to be as competent at the manipulation because they don't have the perspective provided by experience and maturation of the brain.

Yes that's also a problem. And she should probably be charged with harassment or something like that. But she isn't. Instead we're setting stupid precedents with far-reaching ramifications that won't do anything to stop bullying or punish bullies.

Seriously, my only point has been that the problem is bullying. Let's focus on that. If there isn't a criminal charge for the pre-mediated and long-term harassment of a child by an adult then there should be. Deal with that problem before screwing up things you don't understand.

Separately from that issue, I do think violating the TOS should make you criminally or at least civilly liable. Otherwise, the TOS loses all meaning, and you can't, for example, set up a kid friendly website and use the TOS as a legal aid to protect that from internet predators. Having TOS be enforceable is definitely the right way to go. People unwilling to comply with the TOS should NOT use the website. This would make most sites with heavy han

And she should probably be charged with harassment or something like that.

There's an old legal axiom that, "hard cases make bad law." This was a hard case in that an adult deliberately harassed a young girl and that harassment caused a nasty result. Since everyone was up in arms against her behavior, which was apparently not within any state or local laws, the prosecutors stretched to find anything that they could charge her with and thus satisfy the "somebody needs to do something" contingent. However, if this charge continues, the bad law will set another precedent to strip another bit of freedom from the rest of us.

I still don't really think that harassment truly caused this. It may have contributed, but no amount of harsh typed words on a website would drive a normal, emotionally healthy person to this. Maybe her upper-class family is in denial that they were too busy to notice the signs that their daughter was having trouble, maybe they did the same thing way too many parents do, leave their children to fend for themselves instead of providing a stable home life and emotional support. There's a lot of "maybes" here, but the bottom line is that this should have been addressed as a whole issue, and persecuting ONE piece of the puzzle this harshly is not the answer.

Yep, we all know we need more laws to keep us "safe" from the terminally stupid.

Lets see... if you had kids... how would you raise them? To be offended by losing at kickball and have the "authorities" pass new rules outlawing kickball in school, because, like, gosh, someone's feelings got hurt by losing? To be offended by bullies and whine to "authority figures" to save them? I know this is the wrong forum to ask reasonable attitude and problem questions like these. Seems almost obvious, if you're defending the terminally stupid, and their idiot parents who were too busy to raise their kid to be strong enough to make it, you'll probably end up defending such idiocy as "the government should make it illegal to harass the terminally stupid until they do what they'd do eventually ayways."

Because we all know we need MORE laws and punishment for harmless hazing crap that ALL of us put up with. And it was painful until we either learned, or had it taught to us (if our minds were capable of learning and thus surviving) that what other people think is usually pretty worthless. Most people are willing victims and have been raised by the current societies to be WAITING victims and victim worshipers. You'll have to pardon me from abstaining from the rampant victim worship. Willing victims are to be detested not worshiped. Its like the jews who willingly got on those trains, or the japanese who willingly got interned in the USA, or the fools in germany who surrendered their arms to the authorities or the fools who didn't put up a sign "trespassers will be shot" in New Orleans during Katrina. You don't let the bullies know to stop early, or STOP them... and you end up a victim.

Most people today aspire to be good little dogs, to obey, and to hopefully never get kicked. But guess what... shit happens. The only way shit will NOT happen, is to be locked up in a padded cell... and even then your jailers will mistreat you.

Just like reading an article about some idiot who hurt himself by not wearing eye protection while using power tools. What is the headline?? "New regulations may be necessary for construction sites."

Gee, you mean the huge OSHA bureaucracy couldn't stop one retard who wasn't wearing his recommended gear, namely eye protection? What the hell more can be done to keep the stupid safe from their stupidity? hell we shouldn't even be paying to keep stupids in good health. Their fully deserved darwinian deserts would be to be permitted to fully enjoy the fruits of their stupidity... and I should fully enjoy the fruits of my labors, as should you and everyone else. Instead we have to pay taxes to keep "lawmakers" in their non productive labors of telling us how to walk and talk around stupids. Yep, more political correctness. As if there wasn't enough.

Some day, all this shit will blow back. I just hope its before I have kids. I really don't want any child of mine growing up amongst this pathetic generation of weaklings. Hell if I raise them right they'll be punished for being "insensitive"... "let the other kids win a turn"... "oh now we have to make that game illegal too, because winning damages self esteem for the losers."

I mean damn... I'm not that old, but when I grew up, losing was something to learn from (I agree that few do, the proper victim mindset is to get depressed when losing, and its a mindset that is inculcated by movies, literature and school)... in school it was always frowned upon to make mistakes... outside of school mistakes were crucial and very useful. I believe that old greek fellow who shouted Eureka had spilled something, hadn't he?

what you are ignoring is that we all have some armor against getting hurt by other people. If you know someone is your enemy then there is less of an effect on you since you know that this person isn't your friend and is just trying to get to you.

Everybody wears masks and mostly you get to see what they want you to see we play roles be it doctor engineer whatever. Mostly people automatically say fine, when asked how are you. It's a ritual you say fine because the other person doesn't want to know most of the time. Most interaction is just role playing.

Love on the other hand tends to go with trust and you share things which makes you vulnerable, your without your armor, you might not share everything probably don't for most of us.

Having a strong emotional bond with someone, means that someone could hurt you beyond anything anybody else could do.

What I'm saying is the person you love the most can hurt you so badly you might commit suicide, most of us will do something less extreme, get drunk or maybe not date for a while.

Experience tells us that relationships fail and you get over it.

This girl did not have this experience and to top it off she wasn't just dumpedbut faced an overwhelming assault on her whole emotional being from the person she was closest to.

An interesting legal argument in uk law at least is that you can be found guilty of murder if you procure someone to act as your instrument, ie hire a hitman, or persuade your boyfriend to kill your husband for example.

did "josh" procure megan to act as his instrument to kill megan? Ok "josh" probably didn't want megan dead just seriously hurt. Therefore a lesser charge such as manslaughter (murder in the 3rd degree?) should apply. I should explain Murder carries a mandatory life sentence in the uk, Manslaughter allows a judge considerable leeway in what sentence to apply.

Manslaughter would seem to be a reasonable sentence for the circumstances and actions surrounding megans death.

The issue of bullying in general is a nasty can of worms to open , when does standard working practice become abuse? It isn't easy to define, evidence is hard to obtain and what may be devastating to one individual will have no effect on another.

Finally at Megans age with her lack of experience, the hormonal changes she was experiencing as most teenagers do with the abuse of trust from "josh" Is suicide so surprising?

I would agree though MySpace's terms and conditions should have no bearing on this what so ever.

You know, if they lock the woman up in the right cell, she'll probably get bullied and harrassed herself. Maybe it would actually be a way for the punishment to fit the crime. You know, as long as they don't kill her.

Suicide is not a natural response to bullying, especially when that's not even face-to-face, which is what we experienced.

Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.

Next day. She hates you. End of story.

Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you

Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now. Next day. She hates you. End of story.

I realise this is Slashdot, and not Lavalife, but I don't need to imagine. My girlfriend of a few years cheated on me. Am I killing myself? No.

This is silly. Sometimes people have to take responsibility for their actions, or maybe look a bit further for what the root causes were of the problem. I'm not trying to understate her death in anyway. I'm trying to say that I find it difficult to believe that her life is just peachy and then when her internet friend whom she's never met says nasty things about her, she commits suicide. I think that this whole "MySpace/Internet/Evil Adult" thing is taking us away from the real discussion which should be about bullying and mental illness.

Was she your first girlfriend? Or worse, have you had a dozen or so other girlfriends, but realized the day you met her that she was really special on a different level?

Chances are you've had girlfriends before, and you don't have a little harem now, so somewhere along the line you encountered bad relationships. Chances are also pretty good that you have something else worthwhile in your life, and don't feel like you've been totally abandoned and left with nothing. So this is probably pretty familiar to

I don't mean offence to you, but what you're saying is kind of silly. Your logic goes "Well it was her first boyfriend and she was teen. So therefore she committed suicide. And if you were a teen and it was your first girlfriend, you would also have committed suicide".

If that was the case, a lot of people wouldn't be alive. Why can't you just accept that I find it extremely hard to believe that being dumped by an online boyfriend who said mean things about her was the only thing that went wrong in her life and was the only factor in her suicide?

Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.

That happens to millions of people. Yeah, it hurts for a while, but you either move on, or you get so caught up in yourself that you keep dwelling in something that happens to everyone.

Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you of everything; no form of physical torture can compare. It will consume and destroy you; if it passes a certain point and you DON'T kill yourself off, you'll be left a hollow shell incapable of really recovering. You'll live a life lost, where everything seems pale and insignificant, incomplete, and you smile at the simple things when you can but still find no satisfaction in the finer joys of being alive.

What? You're joking, right? That's pretty self-centered, ain't it? To compare something so temporary with actual torture, to say that something so common will take all joy out of your life. If what you say were true, NO ONE would be happy.

When someone's already having emotional trouble, and is going through a hormonal/emotional development stage, and is lacking emotional growth experience to cope, they're ripe for crafting this exact situation. Probably not enough to really trash their life if they survive it, but enough to make it obvious to them that life isn't worth living right now.

No. If someone really kills themselves over that, they were either raised to think they're the only human in existence, or there is something else massively wrong in their lives. I'm not trying to sound cold to the girl, but as far as I can tell, suicide is caused more by self absorption that this 'pain' you speak of. Either way, the parent poster is correct; suicide is not a natural response to bullying.

That happens to millions of people. Yeah, it hurts for a while, but you either move on, or you get so caught up in yourself that you keep dwelling in something that happens to everyone.

I know two people that exact scenario happened to. High school crushes and "she's cute and fun to be around, we click, I like her, it'll grow into something nice" aren't the same thing.

One of those two had a magnum in his hand ready to shoot himself over it, but couldn't do it. A good 10 years later he's all better... kind of. He has goals, he takes any job he wants, he can get along with people. As for his actual life? He doesn't bond with people on an emotional level, at all. He doesn't recognize th

Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.

Suicide is not a natural response to bullying, especially when that's not even face-to-face, which is what we experienced.

1. At a quick googlin, 16.3% of the deaths in males aged between 15-24 is suicide. Way ahead of, say, cancer at 6.8% or heart disease at 3.9%. That was a statistic for 1998, but I don't expect things to have changed too dramatically. Apparently in Australia in 2005, two thirds of the deaths between 12 and 24 years old were suicides. Two thirds. That's immense.

So it's not an entirely unnatural response to stress and depression, either. It happens.

Either the girl had other problems which lead to her suicide (likely) or she was simply mentally unstable.

2. Well, yes. And the perpetrator deliberately used that.

Yes, some people are more fragile than others. That doesn't excuse preying on them.

To give some analogies, just because some old lady barely walks to a walking stick, it may make it easier to snatch her purse and run away, but it doesn't make it more morally justifiable. Just because someone is in a wheelchair, it may make it easier to mug him (I mean, it's not like he's gonna dodge or run away too fast), but again it's not more morally justifiable. Etc.

If anything, from where I stand, it just makes the perpetrator more heartless and worthy of contempt.

In this case the lady _knew_ that the neighbour's girl is depressed and suicidal. She had already talked about suicide in third grade, and was seeing a therapist about it ever since. And she just took it as an invitation to try to actually drive her to suicide. I'm sorry, I can't really see her as anything else than a monster.

3. We're not talking just a random forum flame war, or one mean message or two. Lori Drew spent a whole fucking year first gaining the girl's trust, and then mounting a _massive_ online campaign against her. She not only posted all the girl's secrets, but also produced a storm of messages about how Megan is fat and a _slut_.

More importantly, this is the final message that pushed the girl to suicide: "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you."

I'm sorry, but telling someone who's already massively depressed and suicidal that the world would be better without her...

It's not just callous or insensitive. The whole thing reeks of deliberately creating the setup and then as much stress as possible, to make sure she breaks down. And spending a year for that. A whole year dedicated to killing the neigbour's daughter.

I don't know about you, but in my book that's premeditated murder. The whole sequence of events served only one purpose and achieved it.

4. You _could_ say that the girl could/should have been tough and ignored it, but that still doesn't excuse the perpetrator.

I mean, seriously, if I were to knife you and take your wallet, equally it could be argued that you could/should have been spry and dodged the knife. You could/should have taken some martial arts lessons and disarmed the attacker. It still doesn't excuse the criminal, either way.

Plus, again, she chose a victim who was already known as an easy target for that.

In either of those cases the medium through which the straw that broke the camels back travelled is not relevant.

Pretty much. Regardless of the medium involved, it's still a convoluted case of premeditated murder.